Home
Music
Manifesto
Messageboard
Virtual Matt
King Tufu
Brewspaper
Search Terms
Links
Feedback
Loretta
Amazing Crap
Project DIVX
Matt's Sports Beat
The Running Joke
Project Spam
Clog
In Progress
Contact

Remember DIVX? No, not that DivX.  Not the video codec. I'm talking about the pay-per-play digital video system cooked up by Circuit City, and rolled out briefly in 1998 and 1999. Now do you remember? Just how old are you, anyway?
The System
First, the participant agrees to buy a DIVX player, also known as a DIVX-enhanced, fully-featured DVD player. This DIVX-enhanced model is going to cost the participant $50-$100 bucks more than a standard, non-DIVX-enhanced DVD Player, but the difference in price is far less than the difference in value for the participant.

With this special DVD player, the participant will be able to purchase and watch specially encoded movies for $4.50. These special, affordable DIVX discs are time sensitive. From the first time the participant presses play on one of these DIVX disc, he unlocks a 48-hour viewing period during which he can watch the movie as much or as little as he likes.

After the 48 hours have elapsed, the participant will not be able to watch the disc again without paying a rental fee to DIVX. The fee can be as little as $2 for a single viewing, or as much as $20 for unlimited future access.

The Quandry
I bought in. In December 1998, I bought RCA's DIVX-enhanced DVD player and about 10 movies. I used the system, and I liked the system. I argued the merits of the system to friends and family. I bought DIVX discs, and occasionally rented DVDs at the local video store. Over the course of the first 6 months, I probably picked up 40 movies, for around $180, and watched about 30 of those. And then, on June 16th, 1999, Circuit City pulled the plug on DIVX

Sales at participating Divx retailers reflect strong consumer interest in the Divx feature. Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain adequate support from studios and other retailers. Despite the significant consumer enthusiasm, we cannot create a viable business without support in these essential areas. Existing, registered customers will be able to view discs during a two-year phase-out period. We want to thank all our existing Divx customers and regret that this decision was necessary.

And so the benefits began, the DIVX software prices were slashed from the original $4.50 to $3.50 to $2.25 to $.99, and I bought extra movies all the way down. DIVX sent me a check for $100 to reimburse me for supporting the DIVX feature in the first place, and I had two whole years to watch all the movies I had stockpiled. Well, time has a funny way of elapsing, and now there is just over a month left before the DIVX discs are no longer supported. Although the reasons are technical, I am fairly confident that the 57 discs I haven't yet seen will be unwatchable after July. Maybe sooner

The Project
And so the race is on. The clock is running. Project DIVX is all about making the most of the money that I have invested in this system over the last couple of years. I intend to watch, review, and recommend (or discommend) as many of these films as possible in the time that is left. The target list is given here, with a "check" signifying a film that is not a waste of time, and an "X" signifying a film that sucks ass. I hope that this project can be helpful, or entertaining, or at least not painful, for the die-hard cocksocketeers among you. Direct any comments, suggestions, or feedback to the Socket.

The Outcome
I made it through 13 out of 56 films, a 23% watch rate. Some were good, some were bad, but in the end, films were watched. I wrote up my reviews, and I grew as an individual. More than that, I grew as a community. I grew as a nation. Of course, your captain will always have access to a ridiculous number of movie channels, so some of these titles will surely be viewed in the future. I will rate and review, as appropriate.

A Cool Dry Place
1998
97min.
Viewed:05.11.01
Directed By:
John N. Smith

Starring:
Vince Vaughn
Monica Potter
Joey Lauren Adams


Cute. It's a cute movie, this one. It's got cute people doing cute things. It's cute when the cute little kid pilfers a urinal cake. It's cute when the cute people get it on. With this movie, even the naughty crap is cute. It's even cute how it tries to be gritty and low budget, but don't be fooled. Behind all this cuteness lies the dark and heavy moral fiber of Hollywood. Well shit, even that seems too harsh for the cute veneer that overlays A Cool Dry Place. It's like there's all this crap that can happen, peripheral shit that has recently just become par for the course, stuff that may seem unfair or difficult to endure. And truly, there is something meaningful in that thought. As we evolve, and as we allow our culture to migrate and change--to handle new and unusual circumstances, there will surely be casualties. There will be strange new fissures in the bedrock of our ideals. Parents who are just children themselves may not be able to keep intact a nuclear unit of sustenance that was once necessary. This is nothing terribly new, but it is something that will always have terrible implications. A Cool Dry Place doesn't really get its claws into the meat of this issue, though, because it seems a little preoccupied with "keeping it cute". It is like the shadow of an idea is supposed to take the place of its real representation. And really, all of this is more of a philosophic beef. There's not too much to hold against this movie. Because it is so goddam cute and all. dating site for women

I think that the point of view from which the story was told was its strongest element. In a morally questionable situation, the point of view can make or break the justifications that ensue. The writing in general was pretty sweet, with a sensitive chucklehead like myself laughing out loud on occasion. Vince Vaughn is a great actor. He may take some criticism for lack of range, but I find the unconsciousness of his acting memorable and admirable. Anyway, Vince plays this big city lawyer who, by the virtue of actions completely outside of his control, finds himself in podunk small-town USA, working underneath his potential, and somehow coaching the local high school basketball team. Since when do they let lawyers coach high school basketball? One of the problems of the notable perspective of A Cool Dry Place is that the local country folk are presented as a flat caricature. It's a shame that you choose to set your story in a place that you also feel compelled to make fun of by means of under-representation. So anyway, flatness is a beef--the flat treatment of the thick subject matter, and the flat characterization of the bumpkins. Now here's a positive: if you watch long enough, you will see Mr. Vaughn hurl a jar that contains a Jellyfish named "Mom", who has been preserved by a liquid that is composed largely of aftershave. manhattan hotel

I am on the fence about A Cool Dry Place. It has shortcomings, but even the shortcomings demand some attention. At the heart of the story there is a real masculine element. And it's not the kind of bullshit you get with your typical guy movie. It is the humor and the acting that make A Cool Dry Place a recommendation. Basically there is a lot of crap to get through, but just go ahead and get through it. It's not like it will be painful or anything. Not too painful.

Chain Reaction
1996
106min.
Viewed:05.19.01
Directed By:
Andrew Davis

Starring:
Keanu Reeves
Morgan Freeman
Rachel Weisz
Fred Ward

Chain Reaction was pretty good. Keanu Reeves gets made fun of a lot, so it is always interesting to see what kind of characters he takes on. Actually this was a pretty typical role for him. Rough, gritty, street-smart, college drop out. Whatever. He was alright, but it was the script that stole the show. What happened in this movie that is different from most movies was that the characters spoke, acted, and reacted as you would imagine that you would if you were ever somehow embroiled in a far-flung conspiracy that centered around a worldwide economic and cultural revolution and that stretched into the darkest corners of power inhabited by politicians, kingmakers, and visionaries. May sound a little exotic to you, but it's the kind of thing I go through day in and day out. So, you see, I am a capable judge of these things.

Keanu was fine, and on the plus side I don't particularly feel like I was forced to look at his ass too much. Like other times, in something like Speed, when you've got the actor's ass stealing the show, I sometimes think just a little too hard about my own sexuality, always stopping short of touching myself in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable. Morgan Freeman is in this flick too. He is always pretty good to watch, smooth talking grandfather type that makes you feel oddly comfortable. Even if he's like a bad guy with a gun, he still always has that heart of gold buried deep in there somewhere.

Anyway, it was a nice mix of action and suspense. Pretty lifelike even for the paranoid setting. And the movie didn't really fuck with you too much. No drawn out fight sequences. No trying to build suspense into situations where you already know what the outcome is going to be. Not much gratuitous bullshit. They could have had a nice little sex scene in there with the tasty Rachel Weisz (yum). But then there would have been extra Keanu ass and all the conflict to deal with. It's funny, I just finished watching "Mercury Sucking", and both movies are set in present day Chicago, and both are sort of political conspiracy flicks, but in so many ways the two films are antithetical to one another. I'm not talking about the message so much as the presentation. Mercury Sucking had all that gratuitous crap. Except the ass. Unless you count Bruce Willis' ass, which you probably should. What was I talking about? Oh yes. So I never really heard of this movie before I bought the DIVX. It came out in 96 and it has a little star power and it's pretty good. So what is up with that? Sometimes you just can't tell Golden Eagle Coins was founded in 1974 by Robert W. Mangels

Evidence Of Blood
1998
109min.
Viewed:05.20.01
Directed By:
Andrew Mondshein

Starring:
David Straithairn
Mary McDonnell



A movie doesn't have to be fast-paced to be riveting. This movie, Evidence of Blood, meanders a bit, which is forgivable mainly because it is largely psychological. Big city crime writer revisits his roots in rural Georgia when an old friend dies. As the writer explores the ins and outs of a forty year old crime, and passes through the lighted and darkened chambers of human psyche, he finds all his own actions and history reflected in his obsession. He's all like "hey, the body's missing" and "hey, my past is missing", and "hey, people are insane", and "hey I'm not so rational myself". Anyway, Evidence of Blood has a way of taking the long way there, which is only a little distracting.

A bit more distracting than that was the talent. In some cases, an unknown cast can really drive home the gritty realism of a plotline. On occasion, raw talent is fostered in such a situation. That's not really going on here. That chucklehead playing the lead is a little too self-conscious to earn admiration; nobody else really stepped up to steal the show either.

Now, lookit, those are my only two beefs with Evidence of Blood. Other than the pace and the talent, both forgivable, this is a movie I gladly recommend. You see, it is a mystery. A good mystery and a search to find out what happened, and a promise to resolve the central question and to tie up all the intertwined loose ends. This movie is a case where cartoons could play out the strong, magnetic story to the same ultimate effect. Sometimes you'll be watching and you'll be all like "What the hell is going on?" Then the movie throws you a bone and you start to wonder for real, and you sense that you know, but you also sense that it is impossible for you to know because the puppet master engineers of this little drama haven't given you enough clues yet. Or have they? Anyway, this is what I mean when I say that Evidence of Blood is a psychological film. A real onion in a blusher, dropping veils and peeling back layers.

On a final note, Evidence of Blood is the story of a writer. The problem with movies about writers is that all too often the story shines a little too much light on the hand behind the story. With movies like this you tend to get an infusion of self-consciousness that serves an undue counterpoint to the story itself. I am fairly impressed that here, no such fictional flaw exists. The fact that the protagonist is a writer absolutely supports a delicate interplay between narrative stances and the story's plot. When all is said and done, the end of this movie justifies its existence, and all shortcomings are justified by the quality of the work. Highly Recommended.

Joe Kidd
1972
88min.
Viewed:05.20.01
Directed By:
John Sturges

Starring:
Clint Eastwood
Robert Duvall
Dick Van Patten


Movies serve many purposes. Some films are basically instruments to expand your conceptions of culture and humanity. Other films don't try to do anything but frighten you. Some will warp your perceptions of reality. Some are there to make you sad. Or horny. Joe Kidd is not really like any of those too much. Joe Kidd is just pure, comfortable entertainment. Just under 90 minutes with a direct, unencumbered plotline, and loads of testosterone. Old west, guns, you know what I'm saying

So there's this disenfranchised muchacho of Mexican descent, Luis Chama, who is fighting for the land of his birthright in an old west court of law around the turn of the century. Now Chama is getting no justice so he burns the forged deeds to the land he claims is his own. This action prompts the arrival of the big-city land baron, played brilliantly by Robert "woman go get me some whiskey to drink" Duvall to clean up the situation. Joe Kidd is just this sort of renegade loner cowboy type with no vested interested in anything but his rugged, individualistic code of ethics. Kidd is played by Clint Eastwood and is basically the same character you have seen in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, The Outlaw Josie Wales, Pale Rider, and The Unforgiven.

Like I was saying, this is more of a guilty pleasure kind of movie, but it does make the attentive viewer more attuned to larger issues like European imperialism, and western codified law. Toward the end it also gets you to think about other crap. Like what the hell is going on? Why is Chama turning himself in? What does Kidd care? Who's writing this thing because it is way out of control? Interestingly, the writer of Joe Kidd is none other than Elmore Leonard, who, twenty five years after Kidd was made, began contributing edgy, pop flicks like Get Shorty, Jackie Brown, and Out Of Sight (I don't care what anybody says they were all good movies). I really dig Leonard, but I'm thinking that he was really just starting to hone his skills in the early 70s with this film.

Fortunately, this is a very short movie, so in ends just about the time you start to get really irritated with it. The shoot-out at the end is pretty weak. Kidd actually drives a train through a saloon and shoots everybody. I am surprised that he didn't stop between shots for a snort of whiskey or something. Then, at the end, Eastwood delivers the final judgment shot from the judge's seat in the town courthouse. Pretty transparent symbolism that made me want to take a crap on the sofa. Even though the end is pretty bad, there is a lot of redeeming value speckled throughout. Like there is this one dude who just keeps getting his ass kicked by Kidd all the time. And then there is the eternal charm of the old west. Also, the music is pretty good, which is important here because there is so much time that elapses with no dialog

Mercury Rising
1998
108min.
Viewed:05.19.01
Directed By:
Harold Becker

Starring:
Bruce Willis
Alec Baldwin
Miko Hughes
Kim Dickens

I would like to have a sit down with the crack team of nut-heads that are responsible for putting together this crusty piece of shit. Maybe we could renegotiate the name of the movie, and refer to it from this point forward as "Mercury Sucking". I'll start right now.

Mercury Sucking is a weak ass excuse for entertainment. Although there are myriad annoying things in this flick, the single biggest problem is that idiot kid who plays the autistic protagonist as though he is playing a demon-possessed preacher's boy in a low-budget horror flick or something. I can hear a conversation between the nuthead director and this little punk that we will gratuitously refer to as an "actor":

Nuthead Director: Okay, now I really need you to internalize the autism. Your best bet is to walk around sideways. Avoid looking at anything except the corner of the room, or--and this is only if you can't see the corner of the room--the ear of the person acting opposite you. Also, put on an accent. Anything really, just make one up and try to sound retar...er, slow.

Actor: How abowwt thiiiis. How does thiiiis sowwwwnd. Mommmmeeee. Daddddeeee. Siiiimonnnn is hooooooooooommmmme.

Nuthead Director: Almost, but you were looking directly into my eyes the whole time. Focus up there on the corner.

Actor: Iiiit is haaaarrrrd tooooo waaaalk arowwwwwnd and loooooook aaaaahhht theeeee corrrrrnerrr at theeeeee same timmmmmmmmmmme.

Nuthead Director: Well, you want to be big in this business, don't you? It is going to take hard work. And sodomy.

In addition to this "actor's" suspect acting skills, the concerned viewer also has to sit through a concoction of characters that are flatter than Iowa. Although Bruce Willis' character, Art, is the best developed in the movie, it is because all of his motivations and mannerisms are lifted directly from Die Hard. Renegade cop. Takes on all the villians, including his own people. The villians in this case are the NSA, rather than supergenious thieves, but the point is that all of this is painfully transparent to bozo movie watchers like myself. About halfway through the movie a hot, big-city fashion designer jumps in and just starts doing things for strangers out of the goodness of her heart. Art bumps into her in a downtown coffee shop and convinces her to drop what she's doing and babysit for a couple of hours. Then he stalks her for a while until she lets him sleep over. And then the kid. The goddam kid who is constantly doing the stupidest shit you could possibly do in any given situation. Is there a train nearby? Then you can bet that the kid is walking down the tracks toward it. Did you take a nap in the car? Well then, the kid got out while you rested and is now roaming the streets of Chicago. Having a climactic fight scene on the top of a building? Oh sure, the kid is walking the ledge.

I can't go on much longer. I am getting tired of thinking about "Mercury Sucking". Even the music was piss poor. The real crime here is that I had already watched this movie. About 2 years ago. It is so mindless and forgettable that it took me 45 minutes this time before I even experienced a hint of deja vu.

Phantoms
1998
91min.
Viewed:05.20.01
Directed By:
Joe Chappelle

Starring:
Peter O'Toole
Rose McGowan
Ben Affleck


I picked Phantoms to watch because it is short and, I assumed, quite a low-involvement sucky-ass movie. You know, it's a lazy Sunday and I thought that if I wanted to take a nap, it wouldn't be too much of a loss to miss the middle chunk of this thing. As the opening credits began, a sudden, perverse thought flashed into my head: "What if this turns out to be good?" I toyed with that notion as the film started, but that little daydream vanished as the dialogue began. So, Phantoms sucked, but keep in mind that it promised little and set low expectations from the outset.

I would say that Phantoms is less an exploration of the paranormal than a flat out descent into the abnormal. Like what is Peter O'Toole doing in this turd? Maybe, like his tabloid-writing character says, he "needs the money". And this really doesn't seem like a smart career move for Mr. Ben Affleck. Maybe he just wanted to get into Rose McGowan's pants, but I think he should have listened to what his buddy Matt Damon must have told him: "Don't touch that nasty sheet of toilet paper with tongs". Don't these "up and coming young actors" even read these scripts before they sign on? It's possible that they were all sold a counterfeit bill of goods, but I can't believe that the original novel by Dean Koontz is really that much better than this. I think I even saw Matthew McConaughey in a bit part. Further proof that big league Nut Heads are behind Phantoms.

It's not even very suspenseful. I suppose it can be effective to write a faceless terror in as your protagonist, but if you want to build in real suspense, you should at least give some qualities or methodology or basic form to the villain. I'll give you an example. There is this one dude in an astronaut outfit standing in the street. This black tentacle thing pops through the pavement, enters the astronaut suit, fills the helmet up with some kind of oil, and the dude falls down face first into the street. He stands up, clearly possessed by the evil beneath, and his helmet shield is cracked, and all the oil is gone. Dude opens his mouth, reaches into his throat, and pulls out a piece of the helmet shield. Then he spits some blood into the mask chard, and it turns into a lizard. A puzzle for Peter O'Toole's character to figure out. Is that gripping? Terrifying? Try irritating.

Finally, through all the cliché bullshit and mindless slices of "terror", all this film can come up with is a basic good-versus-evil-through-the-story-of-Christianity motif. Did you ever see that one ridiculous space movie with Lawrence Fishburn? Well this is even more transparent and annoying. So anyway, what's the answer? How do you outwit and kill the evil below? Well, it turns out, because the evil is essentially made of petroleum jelly, you just feed it a manmade disease that was created to turn oil fields into biologically neutral stuff. Did you get that? Here. In case you think I am being overly harsh on Phantoms, I shall reproduce a typical, totally on-the-nose exchange between Affleck and O'Toole:

Affleck: You’re saying that we can use this stuff to attack the Ancient Enemy like it was an oil spill and infect it?

Otoole: If its hydro-carbon structures are similar to petroleum--it's a big stretch, but...

Affleck: We need to find a way to get at the mother mass and we need to find some kind of delivery system for this stuff. Now if we do that, will it kill it all?

Otoole: Unless there's a nucleus that can tear loose from the mass and survive on it's own

Affleck: You know, I just really wanted you to say "yes".

What do you think? Is somebody trying to set up a sequel here? Well if that was the point behind the nucleus tearing loose, then I say to you, Mr. Writer, you are an enormous Nut Head. Anyway, it's a miracle I didn't nap through this piece of crap, and it's a shame that I watched the whole thing. I certainly must recommend against Phantoms, but let's be fair, it is somewhat redeeming that this film never pretended very hard that it was even going to be good.

Ronin
1997
121min.
Viewed:05.10.01
Directed By:
John Frankenheimer

Starring:
Robert De Niro
Jean Reno
Natascha McElhone
Stellan Skarsgard

What am I, a goddam super genius? Nobody likes a movie that treats its audience like an idiot. Ronin is no such movie. Ronin says "put on your thinking cap, and when that doesn't work, drink a load of brain juice, and when that doesn't work, feel free to watch several more times". I have just seen a monumentally confusing and intriguing movie that bounces happily among espionage, double dealing, shady pasts, political intrigue, testosterone, wicked car chases, and silver cases carried around by balding men. It's all kind of weird. Everything will be going just fine, and then some dude spills coffee on his pants and starts crying, or there will arise a lengthy ice-skating sequence. If I seem a little scattered it's because, well, fuck, this movie is still melting my mind.

Ronin is a term for disenfranchised Samurai who have lost their leader and have become freelance hires, making themselves available for anyone who may have a need for Samurai like services. Don't worry, though, because none of this will enter the film's plot in anything more than a subconscious way. Maybe the Ronin are the rag-tag band of contract men who are hired to get the case. Don't worry too much about the case, though, because you never get to find out what it contains. Or maybe the Ronin are the loosely connected group of Irish terrorists who are out to disrupt peace. Don't worry too much about the IRA, though, because there's only one guy involved who is preventing the happy marriage of the Catholics and Protestants over there--and he's goin' down.

So here's what sucks: the confusing goddam script, the 2-dimensional depiction of international hot topics, and the name of the movie. Now, here's what's good: the car chases, the other car chases, the guns, and did I mention the car chases? Really, though, the direction is excellent. Even though you will not know what's happening, or ever fully comprehend the plot, you will nevertheless find yourself glued to the screen trying to figure everything out. Now I am telling you up front that you will fail, but recommending nevertheless that you give it a shot. De Niro is always good to watch. This time around he is in a sort of reprisal of his role in Heat. Basically a cool customer, always collected, and always a badass. As a matter of fact, the acting is uniformly excellent in Ronin. It's easy to make fun of a script that does not underestimate the intelligence of its audience, but is equally easy to recommend a film that is based on such a script. Ronin is worth two hours of your time.

Strange Days
1995
145min.
Viewed:05.26.01
Directed By:
Katheryn Bigelow

Starring:
Ralph Fiennes
Angela Bassett
Juliette Lewis
Vincent D'Onofrio
Richard Edson

Sometimes when a movie is very long it is because there is a lot to be said. Sometimes a long movie just indicates a slow pace. Other times a movie is long because it is in love with itself. All long movies fit, or try to fit, or could be said to try to fit into one of those three buckets, and most fail and just wind up sucking for way, way too long. Strange Days is a movie with a lot to say, and which is in love with itself, so that it is generated on top of a slow pace. And it does pretty well overall. The problem with the long movie, is that as it goes on and on, the expected payoff gets bigger and bigger. So I think that Strange Days' principal shortcoming is that the storyline, particularly the ending, is a man by the name of Mr. Predictable. But it's not all bad, because there is substantial payoff in other ways. Particularly in the first-person vignettes, that nearly deliver on the promise of the "virtual reality" device posited in the movie. Anyway, I don't mean to be overly concerned about the length here, it's just that this little number could have been packed into about 100 minutes. I guess the sponsors of Strange Days just thought that the ending was really surprising and well concealed. I'm not going to spoil anything here, but trust me, it's not much of a leap--even if it does try to get all Usual Suspects toward the end.

So who's in this movie? Well first there's Richard Edsor, who was in This World, Then The Fireworks, which I watched on DIVX last night. His credits are pretty interesting, and include films like Timecode, Lulu On The Bridge, Jury Duty, Do The Right Thing, Howard The Duck, and even Desperately Seeking Susan. And there's Ralph Fiennes, who was incredible in Quiz Show, and incredibly awful in The Avengers (thank God I didn't get that one on DIVX). If I were in charge, I would have had Mr. Fiennes play this one as a Brit. His American accent is pretty weak. And there is also Juliette Lewis, whom I love dearly, and to whom I would like to put the bone. But she's pretty lackluster in this movie. It's not totally her fault, as her character was written a little flat (and flat-chested, but I am still thanking God for that lengthy topless scene). She is at her best in the on-stage scenes where she emulates P.J. Harvey. Also, there's Angela Bassett, who is kicking all kinds of ass, and playing everything way over the top in a lovable, Jim Carrey kind of way.

I have to say that is was a little weird watching Strange Days, because the time frame was off-kilter. It was clearly written in the early 90s as a parable for crossing the century's threshold, but it wasn't made until 1995, and I procrastinated so long to start watching these DIVX movies that it is even now quite dated. Probably not as much as End of Days, though. And hey! It is a James Cameron film. In the final analysis, it's pretty good. It was too long, with no proper payoff, but you can tell that the length is directly related to the passion that the writers had for this. Even if it is no Citizen Kane, it's clearly a labor of love. Strange Days is recommended, particularly if you have not yet witnessed New Year's Eve, 1999. Also, if you are into Juliette Lewis, or tiny boobs, or both, then the recommendation is even stronger. If you are into good dialogue, you may be disappointed during some stretches, but you will appreciate the natural one-liners that do occasionally emerge, like my favorite: "His ass is so tight when he farts only dogs can hear it". Enjoy.

The Apartment
1960
124min.
Viewed:05.12.01
Directed By:
Billy Wilder

Starring:
Jack Lemmon
Shirley MacLaine
Fred MacMurray


When you watch a movie made and set in 1960s New York City, you are bound to notice how things have changed over time. Little things mostly, like the saucy white-gloved ladies who work all day long pressing elevator buttons for other people who work all day long doing something above manual labor, in its strictest sense. Or like the erstwhile safety of sitting alone or sleeping on a Central Park bench at 3:00 in the morning. Or how delicately American cinema used to treat what I suppose were once taboo subjects like casual sex and suicide.

One thing that has not changed, however, is the effect that brilliant acting, non-invasive direction, and good writing can have on the viewer. Jack Lemmon is an acting powerhouse in his role as the jovial, guileless C.C. Baxter--a modern working man who flits about within the confines of a nondescript national insurance company, the sort that must certainly have dominated the business landscape of the 1950s.

The Apartment is not shy about hammering home its jokes with stainless steel points. In fact, it is the very unevenness of the script, which trades hysterical laughter for sober reflection at the drop of a pin, that allows Lemmon the sort of versatility that best showcases his range. The shifts from high to low are perhaps most effective, entertaining, and disturbing in one scene where Mr. Baxter is forced to abandon a playful one-night stand with particularly ditsy blond because a work acquaintance is at the edge of death, nearly overtaken by her suicide attempt, in his bedroom.

While this film is a bit drawn out, moviewise, there are many entertaining aspects. The Apartment runs the full gamut from slapstick comedy social comment in a smart and often bald satirical sketch of life at the onset of affluence in America. Definitely worth a look, if for no other reason than to experience the unusual feeling associated with watching a completely flat, stereotypical, Jewish New York City doctor smacking a young, perky Shirly MacLaine with a bit too much pepper on the back of his hand.

The Brothers McMullen
1995
98min.
Viewed:05.23.01
Directed By:
Edward Burns

Starring:
Edward Burns
Mike McGlone
Jack Mulcahy


The Brothers McMullen is a moving exploration of Catholicism, detached Irish ethnicity, marital infidelity, and brotherhood. But it's not moving in a good way. It moved me to take a huge crap on the sofa. And a crap in the hallway. And a crap on the DIVX-enhanced DVD player. And a crap in the DIVX-enhanced DVD player. And other, less mentionable craps in a variety of choice places around the house. Poor direction, piss poor writing and poopy piss poor acting make The Brothers McMullen a genuine time-wasting exercise. How did this enormous ass cookie win the best picture at the Sundance Film Festival? I mean, I know how Sundance is all low-budget, independent fare, but I thought that those nutheads paid some attention to the movies that are screened there. Maybe it was an off year? I don't know, and furthermore, there's no excuse anyway. If I hadn't just seen that movie Phantoms, I could honestly say that this is the worst film ever (excluding, of course, the Severed Arm).

There are these three Irish Catholic brothers, sons of an abusive, alcoholic Irish Catholic father, at whose grave the film opens. The mother, it seems, never loved the father, but because of the guilty catholic heart inside her, she waited until her husband died before she ran off to get with her true love--a world champion Irish fiddle player. I am not making this up. Anyway, this film is the story of the brother's lives and encounters with conscience and pussy, and it sucks. The older brother has been married for five years, and decides to bone the girlfriend of his younger brother, who is terribly afraid of commitment, but unlike any gun-shy fellows you are likely to meet in real life, is keenly aware of just how scared he is to commit. Now the youngest brother is a riot. His hair is greasy and slicked back. He knocks up his Jewish girlfriend, and then gets all self-righteous Catholic on everybody. He is always making contemplative faces, while his voice over examines all the aspects of gettin' some.

Here are some of the things these characters say to one another:


Middle Brother: You’re just suffering from the Will I Ever Get Laid Again blues.
Youngest Brother: No my friend. I think it's a case of the You Don't Know How Good You Had It Till Its Gone Syndrome.

Youngest Brother:You’re actually thinking about sticking your penis into another woman?
Oldest Brother: Well that's usually how it works…who says you have to be absolutely 100% faithful to your wife?
Youngest Brother: God Says.
Oldest Brother: Fuck God.

And my favorite soliloquy by the middle brother:

Man is like a banana. Strong and firm. Bright and phallic. And he's protected by his all-important shield. But when a woman comes along she sees this bright phallic beast and she wants it. But she's not happy with it the way it is. She wants to see what's inside. So she starts to peel away the all-important shield. First she wants to see your romantic side. Then she wants to see your passionate side. Then she wants to see your soft caring feminine side. And she keeps peeling and peeling until your left there buck-naked totally exposed with your balls blowing in the wind. And that's when she gets her knife. And she starts to cut away your manhood piece by piece until they're having your cock in their cornflakes.

The middle brother always has a drink in his hand. Always sippin' on some sauce. There is this one scene where the youngest brother wakes up the middle brother in the wee hours of the morning to ask some advice about how to deal with pussy issues. The middle brother turns on the light and he's already holding a bottle of water. Then, in the middle of rambling on about how bachelors rule, he picks up a half-full beer from the dresser and starts drinking that. It sounds funny, but I assure you that it was not presented as slapstick comic relief. The drinking brother, the middle one, is also a script writer. He has written a brilliant script about a man who searches for true love, which is clearly the same idiotic movie that I just watched. I mean, couldn't the writer have had somebody else stroke him off in my face? In the end, this movie must be recommended against. Of everything I've written, the acting is the worst facet. It is like Clerks, if Clerks weren't even charming or funny or mildly shocking enough to make up for the patent weakness of the players.

The Wings Of A Dove
1997
101min.
Viewed:05.09.01
Directed By:
Iain Softley

Starring:
Helena Bonham Carter
Linus Roache
Allison Elliott
Alex Jennings

I admit that I am nothing more than a scared little girl with a penis and a beer gut. No shame in that. I have a particularly feminine sensitivity that allows me to watch and regularly enjoy a good chick flick. I've got several chick flicks on DIVX, so I thought I would take in a couple. The Wings of the Dove was the first on the list. I picked it to watch first because it looked less bland than the others, you know, a little intrigue, a little edge, and (most importantly) a little rough sex. Love triangles with extra groping and tongues all over the place, licking parts that are almost always covered by clothing. Well, if you are looking for a fine, artsy movie with all that type stuff, this ain't it. There is a randy little bit at the very end where Helena Bonham Carter is all naked, but it's not nearly as "moving" as her scene in Fight Club.

The Wings of the Dove is set in London and Venice in the very early part of the twentieth century. It's all about class, poverty and wealth, love, and money. It's also all about moving pretty slowly from here to there. The music is incredibly irritating, always coming up in the middle of a scene as though to punctuate the dialogue, which is generally backed up by strong enough acting to make the music superfluous. Kate and Merton are lovers with no money. Kate's got this wealthy aunt Maude who has offered to take Kate in, give her a taste for the finer things in life, and turn her into a refined, if bitchy, lady of society. The problem with Maude, though, is that she has forbidden Kate from seeing Merton anymore, partly because he is poor, and partly because his name is stupid. To get around Aunt Maude's machinations, Kate befriends an incredibly wealthy, terminal, American girl named Milly. Kate wants Merton to seduce Milly so that Milly will give Merton all the cash and everybody can go tell aunt Maude to take a hike.

The real problem here is that it is difficult to identify with or support Kate. She seems sort of spoiled, angling to get her way without paying for it. She's pretty insipid on top of that. I think that's why the writers invented this moronic, underdeveloped plotline with her hard drinking, opium smoking, hooker boning father, for whom her aunt Maude will be responsible, so long as Kate does what she's supposed to do. But the father is just as morally bankrupt and unlovable as Kate herself, so that whole bit just seems wasted. I cannot even begin to puzzle out what possessed the writers to develop the character called Lord Mark, a whiny alcoholic rich kid who can't pay for his house or his castle. He's also after the hand, er, money, of Milly. Really it's just confusing having him in there. You just want to beat him up, and that has less to do with his actions, and more to do with his irritating persona.

The outfits were nice, and the environs of old London and Venice were pretty spectacular. The acting was pretty good. The boobs were nice but quite delayed. The music sucked. The pace sucked. The script was sort of sucky, and ultimately this is a forgettable film, which is why I have to recommend against watching The Wings of the Dove

This World, Then The Fireworks
1997
100min.
Viewed:05.23.01
Directed By:
Michael Oblowitz

Starring:
Billy Zane
Gina Gershon
Rue McLanahan
Sheryl Lee

This World, Then The Fireworks is a complicated movie with a complicated title. How many film titles have a comma in the middle? That's complicated. If I had to summarize this movie in terms as simple as possible, I would say that This World, Then The Fireworks is about twins--twins and the natural implications of sharing across isolated channels. It's a stylish flick, where everybody tends to talk like Mae West, and it is my favorite type of film. A narrated period piece. You can't really beat a narrated period piece. So it's a strange movie, sort of like how Velvet Goldmine was strange, except this movie doesn't suffer from all the silly weirdness and gender bending banality. This World, Then The Fireworks is weird in its entire conception, with no pronounced strangeness in any specific segment. That's a good thing.

It's a lunatic movie told from a lunatic perspective. There is really a lot to be said for most everything here. The acting is sensational. Rue McClanahan is startling in a breakout performance, breaking out mainly from her role on this crappy TV movie that is on right now, and from her part on the Golden Girls. Billy Zane, is likewise very very good. I have to say that I absolutely hated him in Titanic. I thought that performance was weak and expected very little from him here. He was, however, brilliant in a motivationally schizophrenic role. The direction is subtle and powerful. Scenes slip in and out unobtrusively, then the fireworks. In addition, this film possesses something seductively filthy that makes one wonder what David Lynch has been up to, all the while powering forward on the sort of continuity that a film like Dark Highway could never unhide.

Also, there's the gore and the darkness. The wicked turns, twists, and swings like faces painted silver with piercing, empty eyes swinging their necks and transforming into fleshy masses of sludge that ripple instinctively across the nighttime floor. The opening scene delivers brains splattered across the walls, and the hidden element of humor painted on top, not unlike the scene where the dead john who had the cerebral hemorrhages turns out to be a life insurance salesman. It is funny because it is not supposed to be but is.

This movie is a highly recommended, highly unusual experience. In typical movie terms, you may think of it as a cross between Naked Lunch, Wild Things, and LA Confidential, but it is not really. At many different times throughout, just when it appears that the entire thing is going to unravel, everything gets stuffed back into this shiny, tiny box of great expanse. If the DIVX system were still active, this is one of those discs that I would have converted to Silver or, if available, Gold status so that I could watch it at any time. As it is, I think I will just go buy the DVD. Seriously, watch this one.

Velvet Goldmine
1998
117min.
Viewed:05.13.01
Directed By:
Todd Haynes

Starring:
Ewan McGregor
Jonathan Rhys Meyers
Christian Bale
Toni Collette
Eddie Izzard

This movie cannot be recommended. It doesn't suck ass as bad as other things I've seen, but it is, on balance, an unfortunate use of time. It's kind of a gay movie, bi-sexual maybe with a hint of gender bending. There's nothing wrong with a nice gay movie, and there's nothing wrong with rockstars boning each other. But for reasons entirely apart from its gayness, Velvet Goldmine sucks--but just barely.

Velvet Goldmine does have some redeeming qualities. First, Christian Bale is in it. Christian Bale is the psycho dude in American Psycho, and I think some of the props I awarded him for that performance are coloring my view of his role here, as a deeply closeted journalist who courts and nearly touches (dirty) his own past. Also the presentation of the story is complicated, large, and well-thought-out. If we assume that there is a story here, then the angles that the writers use to get to it are various and diverse, which would indicate one of two things: 1) the writers had an incredibly strong and complete conception of the story or 2) there is no real story. In addition to all that, the music was pretty damn good. There was a lot of Eno, and other fantastic glammy boys like Bowie and Ferry.

So where's the downside? Well, from the opening on this movie is extremely self-referential. A self-defined piece of entertainment designed to address the process of entertainment. Self reference by itself often irritates me, but when it is coupled with self indulgence, there is no salvation. One scene is actually carried off as a dialogue between two glam-rock barbie--er, Ken--dolls. That is either insulting or idiotic, but either way it is emblematic of the suckiness infused in the essence of the movie.

The bottom line: there was just too much time during the film where I was thinking about other things. The approach that Velvet Goldmine takes has potential, but everything is lost in the delivery. I like Ewen McGregor, but he's close to moving onto the "B" list, having appeared recently in two other movies that seem to choke on themselves: Nightwatch, and Eye Of The Beholder (don't even get me started on that piece of shit). Velvet Goldmine would probably be okay if you had 20 minutes to kill and it were music-video length.